No survivor should be cross-examined by his or her accused rapist. Ever. Full stop.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
https://twitter.com/RepJoeKennedy/status/1063161403824132096
The Constitution disagrees:
No crime is so heinous that the Constitutional and due process rights of the accused should be ignored.
https://twitter.com/RepJoeKennedy/status/1063161403824132096
The Constitution disagrees:
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
No crime is so heinous that the Constitutional and due process rights of the accused should be ignored.
Being confronted with the witnesses against you ... different from you getting to harangue the witnesses.
Being confronted with the witnesses against you IS the right to "cross-examine," which is what Kennedy explicitly said the accused rapist should never have the right to do. "Ever," he said. "Full stop."
There is no ambiguity or room for interpretation.
"right to be confronted with" versus "right to personally cross-examine"
LOL ... yes, there is ambiguity.
To call those the same is definitely a matter of interpretation.
No, it's stating fact. That IS the Sixth Amendment right to cross-examination.
What there's no ambiguity in is Kennedy's statement.
Why are you trying so hard to justify whittling away the rights of the accused, to the point of trying to argue a right doesn't even exist?
Being confronted with the witnesses against you ... different from you getting to harangue the witnesses.
Why are you calling something synonymous which is NOT synonymous except after legal interpretation and precedent decided they would be counted as the same?
Those are not synonymous. Our courts have decided one implies the other, but it was definitely a matter of interpretation and could be reinterpreted.
"right to be confronted with" versus "right to personally cross-examine"
LOL ... yes, there is ambiguity.
To call those the same is definitely a matter of interpretation.
No there is only ignorance
Here is what Kennedy is opposing, “would guarantee the accused the right to cross-examine their accusers, though that would have to be conducted by advisers or attorneys for the people involved, rather than by the person accused of misconduct. If requested, the parties could be in separate rooms”
You have no idea what you're talking about.
You're making **** up out of thin air in order to justify taking someone's constitutional rights away.
Why?
I am not making anything up.
I am looking at the plain English. In plain English, those phrases are not the same. The courts had to DETERMINE that one implied the other. That is interpretation.
Your "it's not a matter of interpretation" stance defies plain English. "be confronted with the witnesses" is not the same as "get to ask questions". "Be confronted with the witnesses" could mean no more than the defendant having the right not to have to defend against anonymous accusations.
Someone had to INTERPRET the plain English of the Constitution to mean something more than what the plain English says.
I am not weighing in on the merit of allowing a man to harangue in court the 8-year-old child that he molested. I am simply commenting on the plain English and on your absurd claim that there was no interpretation to get us from the plain English to what our current custom is. Of course there was intepretation to get from the right "to be confronted with the witnesses" to the right to personally interrogate those witnesses.
That is all.
*stepping off this futile merry-go-round now*
I am not weighing in on the merit of allowing a man to harangue in court the 8-year-old child that he molested.
Being confronted with the witnesses against you ... different from you getting to harangue the witnesses.
I'm not aware of any jurist who'll allow one to "harangue" a witness, or even just rant in general.
-- Right to confront witness
Your link shows that it took until 1895 before this thing which the OP said was not a matter of interpretation was finally established in writing.
No, it was simply the first Supreme Court case in which the matter came up, in which the Court explored that part of the Amendment for the first time. They didn't find anything new. They simply stated what had been understood, tracking all the way back to Magna Carta.
If you actually read the case:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/156/237/
You'll see them saying exactly that. (Though you, of course, are likely to refuse to see it.)
Tell me -- what do YOU think the right to be confronted by witnesses against you is for? Explain.
I explained already. I will humor you and explain one more time.
It could be as simple as being entitled to know who your accusers are. No secret affidavits and kangaroo courts where you never know who is charging you.
And Xelor's link does show the issue was still being discussed and revised for some two hundred years.
And that the right of the accused to cross-examine the witness in person is indeed not immutable.
And that's all the attention you're getting from me on this today.
Your agenda is blinding you to the meaning of what should be simple English words. That leaves no foundation for intelligent discussion.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?